In de Braekt Thomas, Aben Jean-Paul, Maussen Marc, van den Bosch Harrie C M, Houthuizen Patrick, Roest Arno A W, van den Boogaard Pieter J, Lamb Hildo J, Westenberg Jos J M
Department of Radiology, Catharina Hospital, Eindhoven, the Netherlands.
Department of Radiology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands.
J Magn Reson Imaging. 2025 Jan;61(1):198-208. doi: 10.1002/jmri.29370. Epub 2024 Apr 1.
Automated 4D flow MRI valvular flow quantification without time-consuming manual segmentation might improve workflow.
Compare automated valve segmentation (AS) to manual (MS), and manually corrected automated segmentation (AMS), in corrected atrioventricular septum defect (c-AVSD) patients and healthy volunteers, for assessing net forward volume (NFV) and regurgitation fraction (RF).
Retrospective.
27 c-AVSD patients (median, 23 years; interquartile range, 16-31 years) and 24 healthy volunteers (25 years; 12.5-36.5 years).
FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE: Whole-heart 4D flow MRI and cine steady-state free precession at 3T.
After automatic valve tracking, valve annuli were segmented on time-resolved reformatted trans-valvular velocity images by AS, MS, and AMS. NFV was calculated for all valves, and RF for right and left atrioventricular valves (RAVV and LAVV). NFV variation (standard deviation divided by mean NFV) and NFV differences (NFV difference of a valve vs. mean NFV of other valves) expressed internal NFV consistency.
Comparisons between methods were assessed by Wilcoxon signed-rank tests, and intra/interobserver variability by intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs). P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant, with multiple testing correction.
AMS mean analysis time was significantly shorter compared with MS (5.3 ± 1.6 minutes vs. 9.1 ± 2.5 minutes). MS NFV variation (6.0%) was significantly smaller compared with AMS (6.3%), and AS (8.2%). Median NFV difference of RAVV, LAVV, PV, and AoV between segmentation methods ranged from -0.7-1.0 mL, -0.5-2.8 mL, -1.1-3.6 mL, and - 3.1--2.1 mL, respectively. Median RAVV and LAVV RF, between 7.1%-7.5% and 3.8%-4.3%, respectively, were not significantly different between methods. Intraobserver/interobserver agreement for AMS and MS was strong-to-excellent for NFV and RF (ICC ≥0.88).
MS demonstrates strongest internal consistency, followed closely by AMS, and AS. Automated segmentation, with or without manual correction, can be considered for 4D flow MRI valvular flow quantification.
3 TECHNICAL EFFICACY: Stage 3.
无需耗时的手动分割即可实现自动4D流MRI瓣膜血流定量,这可能会改善工作流程。
在矫正房室间隔缺损(c-AVSD)患者和健康志愿者中,比较自动瓣膜分割(AS)与手动分割(MS)以及手动校正的自动分割(AMS),以评估净向前流量(NFV)和反流分数(RF)。
回顾性研究。
27例c-AVSD患者(中位数23岁;四分位间距16 - 31岁)和24名健康志愿者(25岁;12.5 - 36.5岁)。
场强/序列:3T下的全心4D流MRI和电影稳态自由进动序列。
自动瓣膜追踪后,通过AS、MS和AMS在时间分辨的经瓣膜速度图像上分割瓣膜环。计算所有瓣膜的NFV以及右和左房室瓣(RAVV和LAVV)的RF。NFV变异(标准差除以平均NFV)和NFV差异(一个瓣膜的NFV与其他瓣膜的平均NFV之差)表示内部NFV一致性。
通过Wilcoxon符号秩检验评估方法之间的比较,通过组内相关系数(ICC)评估观察者内/观察者间的变异性。P < 0.05被认为具有统计学意义,并进行多重检验校正。
与MS相比,AMS的平均分析时间显著缩短(5.3 ± 1.6分钟对9.1 ± 2.5分钟)。MS的NFV变异(6.0%)显著小于AMS(6.3%)和AS(8.2%)。分割方法之间RAVV、LAVV、PV和AoV的NFV差异中位数分别为-0.7 - 1.0 mL、-0.5 - 2.8 mL、-1.1 - 3.6 mL和-3.1 - 2.1 mL。RAVV和LAVV的RF中位数分别在7.1% - 7.5%和3.8% - 4.3%之间,各方法之间无显著差异。AMS和MS在观察者内/观察者间对于NFV和RF的一致性为强到极好(ICC≥0.88)。
MS显示出最强的内部一致性,其次是AMS和AS。对于4D流MRI瓣膜血流定量,可考虑采用自动分割(无论有无手动校正)。
3级 技术效能:3级